Arrest the Pedo-helping Pope?

So in case you've been ignoring the press, Dawkins & co are at it again, this time saying we need to do something about the veil of secrecy around the Church, and the best way to do that is to prove that even those at the very top, have to answer for their actions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7094757.ece

Now whilst I'm sure Dawkins knows he can't get the pope arrested, he can ensure a lot of often difficult questions will get asked, this is something which I'm am just gob smacked by the response of many Catholics.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-media-frenzy/

So basically its OK to just not bother investigating allegations of complacency in an organisation that has complete exposure to vulnerable children? What the hell!

I would understand if they where specifying how the allegations are un-founded, but to just dismiss them with a religious zeal is incredibly short cited, and I hope won't let them blow over.

If you wittingly help someone get away with child molestation, child after child then you deserve to be punished. It doesn't matter if you where following guidelines laid down by a church or any organisation, you deserve to be tried and punished accordingly.

People such as Damian who authored that questionable blog piece I have to ask them, if they don't want someone to be questioned about such crimes despite evidence they should, it seams your implicitly admitting guilt. I would suggest that anyone who 'stays quiet' on the subject of an innocent child been abused for the sake of an organisation seriously questions that organisation. Because to me, that is clear cut that they are batting for the evil team!

It's obscene just how much is being brushed under the carpet, the Catholic church has a lot to answer for these days and something needs to be done about it all. I just cant get over how much of this is being ''allowed'' to s face!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Now whilst I'm sure Dawkins knows he can't get the pope arrested, !

---

Why? The Pope has no immunity from arrest in the UK.

Its election time, we all know Catholics are stupid an pro molesting children, many of them are labour fans thanks to Blair been the first catholic PM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azrael316

Why? The Pope has no immunity from arrest in the UK.

---

Damn straight :)

It's telling that rather than contest the specific allegations of criminal behaviour by the pope (which are extensively documented and now beyond doubt) the church's response to this is to claim 'diplomatic immunity' for the pope, saying that he is a head of state and so immune to charges. In fact he is no such thing; the Vatican is merely a pseudo-state established by Mussolini which was never granted membership of the UN.

More chance of Bush & Blair being arrested as war criminals & for crimes against humanity than the Pope being arrested.

Arrhgghgh. Why can't humanity actually progress into something good, rather than largely following the bewilderingly stupid and inconsistent teachings of ancient and retarded religions led by a bunch of sexually, morally and ethically confused old paedo-morons?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fraz

Arrhgghgh. Why can't humanity actually progress into something good, rather than largely following the bewilderingly stupid and inconsistent teachings of ancient and retarded religions led by a bunch of sexually, morally and ethically confused old paedo-morons?!

---

Because most people are both gullible and thick?
Plus they like meeting up with like simple minded individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Its election time, we all know Catholics are stupid an pro molesting children, many of them are labour fans thanks to Blair been the first catholic PM?

---

Technically he isn't - he didn't formally convert to Catholocism until after he stood down as Prime Minister - although he had adopted many of the rituals of the Cathlic Church before then, and passed several laws that were opposed by the Cathloic Church in spite of his personal convictions. While I am no admirer of Blair, he did keep his religion out of politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

Because most people are both gullible and thick?
Plus they like meeting up with like simple minded individuals.

---

Atheists would spend more time meeting up with like minded people as well...only we'd have to get the religious to babysit...;)

well this had quite a few reads in a short space of time!

I have to give some credit to dawkins for actually getting this issue more coverage in the media, the catholic church can not just play the whole we're a religion cover ups are for the greater good card, it is just incredibly wrong.

But as to if we as a nation will act and question this fellow, well I would feel a lot better if I thought there was a cat in hells chance of that.

waiting on fuddam here....

Urgh, religion, yet another reason to hate it :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadduckUK

waiting on fuddam here....

---

What for?

cause its about god and ****, he is usually on that like a priest on a choirboy.. wait

My question is, why on earth would we arrest the Pope? I mean what crime has he personally committed that falls under UK jurisdiction?

Yes, the Catholic Church may have failed to properly police itself, but there's signs that they're learning from this mistake and the people actually responisble for the crimes have mostly been caught and punished. All this event is, is sensationalism from a bunch of people with an axe to grind against organised religion and a lot of you are being pretty sheep-like in following it, instead of asking questions about what the real problem is and whether it's being solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

Technically he isn't - he didn't formally convert to Catholocism until after he stood down as Prime Minister - although he had adopted many of the rituals of the Cathlic Church before then, and passed several laws that were opposed by the Cathloic Church in spite of his personal convictions. While I am no admirer of Blair, he did keep his religion out of politics.

---

Wrong thread ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

My question is, why on earth would we arrest the Pope? I mean what crime has he personally committed that falls under UK jurisdiction?

---

Covering up pedophilia is a crime you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Covering up pedophilia is a crime you know.

---

Question was, did he do it for the cases within the UK, or against UK citizens? Have we recieved a detention request via Interpol? Has anyone actually made a complaint to the police, backed with sufficient evidence to be worth the CPS's time?


My point was that whilst the entire debacle is repugnant, the Pope personally is only linked by virtue of a couple of cases that occured when he was a Cardinal and mostly by virtue of being the head of the organisation. As far as I'm aware, there's very few laws that make the head of a company or organisation responsible for something that their company/organisation did, and most of those relate to Health and Safety (e.g. Corporate Manslaughter)

Pretty sure that if you ran say.. an orphanage and consistently covered up any events related to prolonged cases of child abuse then yes, you would face charges. As should the pope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

Pretty sure that if you ran say.. an orphanage and consistently covered up any events related to prolonged cases of child abuse then yes, you would face charges. As should the pope.

---

You'd hope that'd be the case yes, but that's also a much more localised situation where you'd have a reasonably good chance of it being proved you personally did something.

More importantly, doesn't anyone else see that this idea of arresting the Pope is just another way of the militant aethiests are trying to cram their belief structure down our throats? Something that organised religion is frequently accused of doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

More importantly, doesn't anyone else see that this idea of arresting the Pope is just another way of the militant aethiests are trying to cram their belief structure down our throats? Something that organised religion is frequently accused of doing.

---

No, if there is proof of someone commiting illegal acts then they should pay the price, if this was 'Mr John Smith from London' he'd be arrested in an instant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

My question is, why on earth would we arrest the Pope? I mean what crime has he personally committed that falls under UK jurisdiction?

Yes, the Catholic Church may have failed to properly police itself, but there's signs that they're learning from this mistake and the people actually responisble for the crimes have mostly been caught and punished. All this event is, is sensationalism from a bunch of people with an axe to grind against organised religion and a lot of you are being pretty sheep-like in following it, instead of asking questions about what the real problem is and whether it's being solved.

---

The Catholic Church, and thus is leader, the pope, is probably responsible for more death and misery than any other organisation in the world. This is mainly down to their ridiculous standpoint on contraception. I could quite happily argue that the entire catholic leadership should be banged up for crimes against humanity - especially when you read stories like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

I should point out that this really is a leadership problem. There is plenty of dissent in the lower ranks regarding their contraception policy, as you'll see in articles like this:

http://www.catholic.org/internationa...y.php?id=19561

Where Father Valeriano Paitoni is quoted as saying: “Rejecting condom use is to oppose the fight for life.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

Technically he isn't - he didn't formally convert to Catholocism until after he stood down as Prime Minister - although he had adopted many of the rituals of the Cathlic Church before then, and passed several laws that were opposed by the Cathloic Church in spite of his personal convictions. While I am no admirer of Blair, he did keep his religion out of politics.

---

This.

I think the attempt by the OP to try and turn this into some kind of anti-labour rant is a bit pathetic :p

But I agree with those saying that this kind of thing shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I'm inclined to believe the disgraceful behaviour by the catholic church in that respect is born out of ignorance rather than malice, but that doesn't excuse it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I think the attempt by the OP to try and turn this into some kind of anti-labour rant is a bit pathetic :p

---

Just pointing out its election time, and things like this would directly effect the way certain people would vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Just pointing out its election time, and things like this would directly effect the way certain people would vote.

---

Why would it? It's got nothing to do with any of the election choices, unless some party has a manefesto that would address it, but I don't see that yet.

edit: or are you basing it on the religious disposition of the leader? In which case Gordon Brown is a Protestant. David Cameron is a Christian of unrevealed denomination so maybe a Catholic. Nick Clegg isn't religious. So if you want to definitely avoid a Catholic then the only party to avoid is the Conservatives. If you want to avoid any religious leanings then you'll need to go Lib Dem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

You'd hope that'd be the case yes, but that's also a much more localised situation where you'd have a reasonably good chance of it being proved you personally did something.

More importantly, doesn't anyone else see that this idea of arresting the Pope is just another way of the militant aethiests are trying to cram their belief structure down our throats? Something that organised religion is frequently accused of doing.

---

Please stop using the term 'militant atheist', I have never seen any armed gangs of atheists wandering around shooting up the place, in fact its not like atheists are even one single coherent group at all. If you simply must add some sort of adjective to describe atheists, how about outspoken? It's far more accurate. Unless of course you just put that in as a rhetorical device to add some emotional hyperbole to your statements.

As to your point, ok its a localised example so lets make it a bit bigger and see if that somehow changes the morality of the situation. How about instead of running one orphanage, you run 100 and child abuse happens in a substantial number of them and you actively cover it up. Does that somehow make the CEO or head of such an organisation less responsible?

No of course it doesn't, bang the pope up, and then string him up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

Please stop using the term 'militant atheist', I have never seen any armed gangs of atheists wandering around shooting up the place, in fact its not like atheists are even one single coherent group at all. snip--->

---

Militant does not have to include 'armed gangs'

Taken from the OED:

Quote:

---

militant

• adjective favouring confrontational methods in support of a cause.

• noun a militant person.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

No of course it doesn't, bang the pope up, and then string him up.

---

That I would say is a miltant view, and I would also point out that inciting violence and inciting religious hatred are both criminal offences in UK law.

This is not aimed just at G4Z - but at all who wish to contribute to this thread.

However abhorrent the subject may be, please keep the discussion reasoned and avoid personal insults on any member or any other individual.

If it wasn't the Pope & someone said the same things about him then everyone would agree, it's not religious hatred (from me at least) as it's nothing to do with it. My issue is with the covering up of horrific acts...

Again as an example: "Mr John Smith from London" has been accused of covering up these sort of acts, he happens to be Jewish/Christian/Buddhist/etc - I don't care about his religion or job title, he should be brought to justice if there is proof to show he is guilty.

No-one should be above the law however it seems some people would appear to be for fear of offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Why would it? It's got nothing to do with any of the election choices, unless some party has a manefesto that would address it, but I don't see that yet.

edit: or are you basing it on the religious disposition of the leader? In which case Gordon Brown is a Protestant. David Cameron is a Christian of unrevealed denomination so maybe a Catholic. Nick Clegg isn't religious. So if you want to definitely avoid a Catholic then the only party to avoid is the Conservatives. If you want to avoid any religious leanings then you'll need to go Lib Dem.

---

No because if the incumbent party were to allow the pope to be arrested, they would immediately loose a huge segment of the catholic voters, quite probably a few of the other highly religious in sympathy.

Do you not think allowing the pope to be arrested would have a negative outcome for the labour party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

No because if the incumbent party were to allow the pope to be arrested, they would immediately loose a huge segment of the catholic voters, quite probably a few of the other highly religious in sympathy.

---

I get you now.

But why wouldn't we allow the pope to be arrested at the moment? I thought our courts do comply with requests, as shown by the problems the Israeli govt. have visiting the UK.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles...line-sensation
http://i43.tinypic.com/302w4e8.jpg

http://www.buzzfeed.com/reddit/pedob...f-pope-in-malt
http://i40.tinypic.com/4rbb40.jpg


are we aware of these :D

Ahahaha! Love the comment on the TimesofMalta page re graffiti, it's not quite the same...

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michaelg

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

---

Please, the latter is a clear breach of law and needs to be addressed. What breaches of law have they done to cause 'untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world'? Where they have done so, the individuals should be prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michaelg

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

---

I quite agree, but then as has been said technically they haven't broken any laws. Its a bit like Al Capone being done on tax evasion rather than organised crime charges, I for one would be happy to see the church go down by any means so they can't continue with their destructive policies in Africa and elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

What breaches of law have they done to cause 'untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world'?

---

Sadly telling people who don't know better that "AIDS can pass through condoms" and even "Condoms are laced with HIV", isn't against the law. That doesn't mean it's not unethical and causing the unnecessary death of millions.

am i THE ONLY one, who couldnt give a ****?

i mean, the whole church is just a massive exploit off peoples ignorance.....WHO CARES?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Georgy291

am i THE ONLY one, who couldnt give a ****?

i mean, the whole church is just a massive exploit off peoples ignorance.....WHO CARES?

---

Well, probably people who give a **** about the world they live in and care about what happens to the most vulnerable people in this world. If you don't care then don't post, what the hell was the point of your post there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Georgy291

WHO CARES?

---

About 200 deaf choirboys been molested?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/wo...25vatican.html

Well whilst I believe in small government, with little interference there are some things which HAVE to be stopped.

I also hope its not just me who has that belief.

Georgy291 and G4Z - I've already posted one warning about inflammatory posting in this thread - this is the last... Debate the subject by all means - but keep it reasoned and polite - and that includes starring and starred out words. OK? :angst:

http://static.timesofmalta.com/media...856-loc_25.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fraz

Sadly telling people who don't know better that "AIDS can pass through condoms" and even "Condoms are laced with HIV", isn't against the law. That doesn't mean it's not unethical and causing the unnecessary death of millions.

---

Are those official catholic church statements?

Richard Dawkins just had this posted on the Guardian 20 mins ago :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cution-dawkins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

Richard Dawkins just had this posted on the Guardian 20 mins ago :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cution-dawkins

---

Unfortunately he still misses the point, the actual crime he's accusing the Pope of isn't a matter of UK jurisdiction, nor am I aware of any law that requires crime to be reported (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a legal expert).

That's the point people are missing in this debate, he's called for the arrest of a man who is not specifically guilty of a crime. The last thing the UK needs is more people being arrested or criminalised just for being associated with something condemed in society. After all, how many people supporting the arrest of the pope are also dead against the detention and torture of people in Guantanamo Bay?



Just as a side note, I personally don't like the views and beliefs of the Catholic Church, they're outdated and generally harmful to modern society, but I don't want to live in a world where beliefs are banned or people harressed for wanting to be part of something bigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Are those official catholic church statements?

---

The "AIDS can pass through condoms" certainly is/was part of the official line: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

And the "Condoms laced with HIV/AIDS" is as reported in the same article, and was also stated by the head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7014335.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

That's the point people are missing in this debate, he's called for the arrest of a man who is not specifically guilty of a crime.

---

What part of been complicit in allowing someone to molest over 200 deaf vulnerable children do you not think is a crime.

Allowing someone who had tied up and forcefully violated an 11 year old boy, to carry on with their behaviour in a position of trust...

I just don't get how you don't think that is a crime? You can't seriously believe the children where 'asking for it' or even old enough to consent to such behaviour.

(it is, fyi in Germany, which we have agreements with over criminals in such serious matters)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

What part of been complicit in allowing someone to molest over 200 deaf vulnerable children do you not think is a crime.

Allowing someone who had tied up and forcefully violated an 11 year old boy, to carry on with their behaviour in a position of trust...

I just don't get how you don't think that is a crime? You can't seriously believe the children where 'asking for it' or even old enough to consent to such behaviour.

(it is, fyi in Germany, which we have agreements with over criminals in such serious matters)

---

Okay .... where in British law does it say that failure to report offences to the authorities is criminal?

I'll tell you. In most situations, it doesn't. The act that made misprision a criminal offence was repealed in 1967 and now, other than very specific situations under specific acts, it is not a criminal offence to fail to report. This specific circumstances include treason, some aspects of terrorism and those in authority (police, etc) failing to report criminal matters. But, by and large, it is not criminal to fail to report. It might be thoroughly reprehensible, and especially obnoxious in the case of child abuse, but generally, not criminal.

Next, what did Ratzinger actually do? He apparently, from my reading of letters, expressed concerns over the defrocking of priests reported as abusing kids, but was it his responsibility to report it, or was it the responsibility of the local church authority where the abuse was occurring, such as the priests in Germany, or the US, or wherever?

Note, I do not endorse what he apparently did (or didn't do), and I don't agree with him. But that isn't my point, my point is whether clear evidence of criminal activity exists, sufficient to arrest? Maybe it does, but so far, I'm not seeing it.

Next, we may have reciprocal arrangements with Germany, but if the alleged offence occurred in Germany,what does procedure require? The UK to initiate an arrest and deliver him to Germany to prosecute? Or Germany to produce the EU arrest warrant for us to execute? As I understand it, it's the latter. So have they?

Next, it's not just what laws are now, but what laws were when the offences occurred (and I mean whatever Ratzinger is accused of, not the actual abuse) and precisely what the treaties that establish EU arrest warrants stipulate. For instance, do those warrants cover crimes committed before the treaty?

Then, what is the exact status of the Vatican? I know some people have claimed it is not a state and therefore the Pope doesn't have diplomatic immunity, but it's a long way from people on a forum making that, based apparently on people in the media asserting that lawyers have said that that case could be made, to it actually being the situation.


Personally, I think the actions of the hierarchy of the catholic church are atrocious, rank hypocrisy and an utter and reprehensible disgrace. If it is possible to bring any of those those in authority and making decisions that resulted either in child abuse, or in failing to prevent child abuse that from continuing when it could have, to justice, then I'm all for it. If Ratzinger comes here and evidence to support a prosecution with a reasonable chance of conviction exists, and if diplomatic immunity doesn't apply, then he ought to be arrested and tried.

But I think that's a fairly large series of "if's".

His actions strike me as utterly disgusting. But it's yet to be established if they were actually criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michaelg

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

---

A rather sweeping generalisation - and one could equally well argue that the Cathlic church (or its members) have relieved much misery in the world - Mother Theresa of Calcutta for example. However in any large organisation, there are thjose that seek to exert power over others, and in same cases abuse that power - however that should not detract from those in an organisation that do not. In the case of Catholocism, I would agree that some of its policies (including contraception) seem perverse and were I a cathoic, find very hard to defend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

Unfortunately he still misses the point, the actual crime he's accusing the Pope of isn't a matter of UK jurisdiction, nor am I aware of any law that requires crime to be reported (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a legal expert).

That's the point people are missing in this debate, he's called for the arrest of a man who is not specifically guilty of a crime. The last thing the UK needs is more people being arrested or criminalised just for being associated with something condemed in society. After all, how many people supporting the arrest of the pope are also dead against the detention and torture of people in Guantanamo Bay?

Just as a side note, I personally don't like the views and beliefs of the Catholic Church, they're outdated and generally harmful to modern society, but I don't want to live in a world where beliefs are banned or people harressed for wanting to be part of something bigger.

---

The alleged crimes of cover up occurred in an area outside UK jurisdiction (Eire) but Dorkins isn't specifically (if I read him correctly) calling for the UK to pursue the matter - it is a general call for Cardinal Ratzinger to be tried (as opposed to the office of Pope) for his role in failing to report a serious criminal offence. (Edit - but see Saracens post above)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

What part of been complicit in allowing someone to molest over 200 deaf vulnerable children do you not think is a crime.

Allowing someone who had tied up and forcefully violated an 11 year old boy, to carry on with their behaviour in a position of trust...

I just don't get how you don't think that is a crime? You can't seriously believe the children where 'asking for it' or even old enough to consent to such behaviour.

(it is, fyi in Germany, which we have agreements with over criminals in such serious matters)

---

I don't know if there is a reciprocal arrangement with Italy (or the Vatican State - however that is defined). The EU arrest warrant (which I think is a dangerous instrument in itself - but thats another matter) may not apply in this case.

Certainly there are questions to be answered by the Church, whether a criminal trial will happen is doubtful - but Dorkins has certainly raised the profile, and if that causes the Church to reform and make its processes more open, that in itself would (IMHO) be a good thing.

Edit - I started writing this before Saracen posted above. As usual he has made the point far more succintly than I and shown some of my assertions (about failing to report) to be false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Okay .... where in British law does it say that failure to report offences to the authorities is criminal?

---

I thought it was in Germany, which from the news I've been reading apparently do have this on their books, much like the French.

In Germany you can (or rather could) be charged for failure to help someone who was in need of medical aid or been abused.

The question is who is the person(s) responsible for allowing the abuse to continue, it seams from the letter quite obvious that Benny was complicit in this?

stop freaking out, all of you. The pope HAS responded constructively, here

I for one am surprised that in a country with 3000+ pieces of new legislation seemingly designed to make any individual a criminal, that he isn't be guilty of something (I know I probably am!). This is the same country where we made a criminal out of an individual having sex with a bike in the privacy of a locked hostel room, if our legal system can make that one stick then I can't see why the pope is somehow immune.

Our government loves 'sending a message', would be nice to see them send a message we could all agree on and tell the pope that if he steps foot in the country he will be investigated at a minimum. At least that way it would save us the cost of his state visit which I for one am outraged about paying for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

I for one am surprised that in a country with 3000+ pieces of new legislation seemingly designed to make any individual a criminal, that he isn't be guilty of something (I know I probably am!). This is the same country where we made a criminal out of an individual having sex with a bike in the privacy of a locked hostel room, if our legal system can make that one stick then I can't see why the pope is somehow immune.

---

Can you spell out what you're accusing him of doing personally that you want him to be arrested for? I'm not really understanding the full details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

I thought it was in Germany, which from the news I've been reading apparently do have this on their books, much like the French.

In Germany you can (or rather could) be charged for failure to help someone who was in need of medical aid or been abused.

The question is who is the person(s) responsible for allowing the abuse to continue, it seams from the letter quite obvious that Benny was complicit in this?

---

Oh it certainly looks like he was complicit in furious Church butt-covering, but the issue I was responding to was whether it was criminal or not here. For all the reasons I listed, I think it's not clear that it was, though it yet might prove to be so.

Did he have a hand, to a greater or less extent, is facilitating the abuse continuing? It sure looks like it. Was that criminal, in order to justify an arrest if he comes here? I don't know, but I've got doubts.

Also, being criminally guilty for not acting to prevent something happening again is different from not reporting something that happened before, and could set a dangerous precedent. We probably all know people that have done criminal things, be it only speeding, drink-driving or, potentially, .... downloading copyright protected files illegally. We want to be careful about opening that door.

Also, it may be illegal in Germany, but for the reasons outlined above, that doesn't necessarily mean he could be arrested here. Unless someone knows better??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

I for one am surprised that in a country with 3000+ pieces of new legislation seemingly designed to make any individual a criminal, that he isn't be guilty of something (I know I probably am!). ....

---

But .... "innocent until proven guilty", and all the bothersome little details like that. :D

He's not guilty of anything until he's been convicted. And, to be arrested, there needs to be a legally valid grounds for the arrest, or it's false arrest and, in a case like this, would probably not only result in a lawsuit but an international incident.

Therefore, does adequate evidence to justify an arrest for an offence which is an arrestable offence under UK law exist? If it does, he should should be arrested if he comes here. But does it? I rather doubt it.

I think its also different to knowing something was happening and doing nothing, which i've been told is illegal even in the UK when it comes to child abuse, I remember been told I'm legally obliged to report anything we where told when I was working with children and on summer schools, apparently it was often the first time children had been away from their abuser. However I wouldn't put it past the lady who briefed us to confuse moral obligation with legal obligation.

But it is definitely illegal to cover it up and put someone in a position of trust time after time?

However looking through all the different news stories I'd have to say it looks like that only legal bit dawkins & co are claiming is that the pope doesn't have immunity.

Finding a balanced news source on this is quite hard, it seams to be polarizing those who are church before children, and those who are going a bit grauniad, emotions first, with a select sprinkling of facts.

It may well be illegal in the UK, if you're "working with" children. Remember I said that one of the exceptions was those in a position of authority? It would apply to prison officers aware of assaults on inmates, or to police officers aware of assaults on those in their custody. I don't know, but it may very well be that if you're in some position of responsibility over kids, as I assume may well have been the case if you're "working with" them, then it may be the case there too. But, Ratzinger (as I understand it) wasn't in a position of authority over kids. He was in a remote church office, responsible for the priests, not the kids. That would, I grant, certainly imply a moral responsibility if his actions kept a priest in place and in a position to re-offend, but I think it;s far from clear that it was a responsibility of a type that led to a criminal liability, and especially, one here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

....

However looking through all the different news stories I'd have to say it looks like that only legal bit dawkins & co are claiming is that the pope doesn't have immunity.
....

---

Even with that, the way I read it is that they're claiming that that case can be made, that it can be argued, rather than that it categorically is true that he doesn't.

And it's a fairly important technicality. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

I think its also different to knowing something was happening and doing nothing, which i've been told is illegal even in the UK when it comes to child abuse, I remember been told I'm legally obliged to report anything we where told when I was working with children and on summer schools, apparently it was often the first time children had been away from their abuser. However I wouldn't put it past the lady who briefed us to confuse moral obligation with legal obligation.

---

I think the most relevant laws refer back to duty of care and criminal negligence. To allow someone with whom you have a duty of care over to suffer harm can result in criminal negligence charge. Hence when you are directly responsible for children, and they report abuse, you are bound by this duty to act on their behalf and to ensure their safety.

None of this applies directly to the Pope however, it'd be a hell of a stretch to charge him with a duty of care for all the worshipers that attend a Catholic Church, even the Bishops directly above the priests aren't technically responsible as the duty falls to the local priest who has the day to day contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

None of this applies directly to the Pope however, it'd be a hell of a stretch to charge him with a duty of care for all the worshipers that attend a Catholic Church, even the Bishops directly above the priests aren't technically responsible as the duty falls to the local priest who has the day to day contact.

---

But this wasn't while he was Pope rather in a previous job so what were his responsibilities at that time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But .... "innocent until proven guilty", and all the bothersome little details like that. :D

He's not guilty of anything until he's been convicted. And, to be arrested, there needs to be a legally valid grounds for the arrest, or it's false arrest and, in a case like this, would probably not only result in a lawsuit but an international incident.

Therefore, does adequate evidence to justify an arrest for an offence which is an arrestable offence under UK law exist? If it does, he should should be arrested if he comes here. But does it? I rather doubt it.

---

Well, I quite agree with you. I hate the idea that everybody is a criminal as I think I have said on here before however I think in this case how exactly are we supposed to know if there is enough evidence unless our authorities investigate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

Well, I quite agree with you. I hate the idea that everybody is a criminal as I think I have said on here before however I think in this case how exactly are we supposed to know if there is enough evidence unless our authorities investigate?

---

Do we know they aren't?

I have no great liking for either the Poop or the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in general. I reckon some of what certainly appears to be their teaching, especially in relation to AIDS in Africa etc is an utter disgrace, and probably ought to be considered a crime against humanity.

My only reservations are about what appear to be calls for a knee-jerk reaction to arrest the Poop if he comes here. It looks rather self-serving, and more about publicity than any serious expectation it'll ever happen. So ... investigate, by all means. Whether the powers that be have the gonads to actually do it is another matter, but (assuming the argument about diplomatic immunity not existing is correct) he ought to be treated exactly as anyone else would be :-

- if grounds to investigate exist, then investigate
- if that leads to adequate evidence of him committing an offence we can arrest him for, then arrest him.
- if arrested, try him and what will be will be.

But, much as I might wish it did, I can't see so far that grounds for arresting him exist. Unfortunately.

Do priest have to complete disclosure forms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

..the Poop..

---

Does he live in the woods?

The pope has already successfully argued that as the senior ambassador of the sovereign state of the Vatican he is entitled to diplomatic immunity from prosecution.

When he helped cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, he was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover it up. His claim of diplomatic immunitywas upheld, so he is really unlikely to be ever arrested or charged ever again.

Even so, it's really difficult to argue that what he did in proffering arguments about the vatican's duties pertaining to sexual abuse constitutes a crime. He was asked about the generalities, not specific cases, and delivered a general opinion. Admittedly it was an ouitrageous one, but I doubt that submitting it was illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob_B

But this wasn't while he was Pope rather in a previous job so what were his responsibilities at that time?

---

AFAIK, no even in his previous position, the duty of care falls directly to the priest committing the offenses (yes I know how stupid that sounds!), and any of the other members of staff who are in the church.


The biggest issue this raises IMO, is whether or not it's right that he should have had responsibility to do something? Personally I think no, because it leads to a state where you can basically sell your neighbours and collegues up the river on a suspicion of an offence being created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Hitchens

...In London, as already reported by the Sunday Times and the Press Association, some experienced human-rights lawyers will be challenging Ratzinger's right to land in Britain with immunity in September. If he gets away with it, then he gets away with it, and the faithful can be proud of their supreme leader. But this we can promise, now that his own signature has been found on Father Kiesle's permission to rape: There will be only one subject of conversation until Ratzinger calls off his visit, and only one subject if he decides to try to go through with it. In either event, he will be remembered for only one thing long after he is dead.

---

http://www.slate.com/id/2250557/

This guy has an interesting point of view on the whole thing :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VaC95jEPTc

(contains some swearing)

If anyone is interested in reading an authoritative summary by the bona fide legal expert at the heart of the case, Geoffrey Robertson QC writes at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...to-court/full/

There's no value in my paraphrasing him if people simply can't be bothered to read anything for themselves, but for the terminally attention-deficient it runs like this; the International Criminal Court (to which the UK has committed support) counts systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity. The pope is not a head of state, because a state cannot be established unilaterally by decree of one state (the then-fascist Italy), and in any case head-of-stateness is no defence before the ICC for obvious reasons.

The artist formerly known as Cardinal Ratzinger (far from merely having the misfortune of happening to be in the boss' golden throne when the ticking paedo-bomb exploded) was personally responsible for concealing evidence in extensively-documented cases of abuse throughout the world by preventing the disclosure to Earthly authorities, silencing the child victims of rape with intimidation and hush-money (arguably a misappropriation of church donations), and secretly facilitating not only the escape from prosecution of child-rapists but also installing them in new parishes to continue offending.

These acts - in the published opinion of a QC - constitute the crime of aiding and abetting sex with minors, and if the perpetrator were anyone other than a religious leader I cannot believe that anyone would argue that he should not face prosecution. As it stands, not one party political leader has expressed any intent to bringing this despicable figure to justice and instead we are to foot the £20m (and rising) cost for his security. This is in the context of being less than one month from a general election and emerging from the most severe recession of a generation.


For editorial balance, I will now summarise the catholic church's responses to this outrage. First it was all the fault of the atheists, then it was an orchestrated conspiracy by the jews, and at time of writing it seems that homosexuals are to blame - basically everyone except the child-raping priests under the supervision and assistance of the pope. If you aren't convinced by the convenient scape-goating of historic catholic boogeymen, then they haven't put forward any defence except:

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7834/cathcherry.jpg

...which will pretty much be the last word on this subject, I suspect.

if Richard Branson found that his Virgin Train stasff all sexually messed about with kittens on a Wednesday at work, or if the head of Barclays Bank found out that on Friday nights, all the Bank Clerks under 20 with big boobs got fondled by all the staff and had to keep quiet about it or lose their jobs... or if the man at the head of Glaxo discovered that over the last 20 years some of his staff had been shooting cats with air rifles in Wembley and tormenting them before killing them...

in every case the police would investigsate the alegations of cruelty or sexual missbehaviour, the top man/woman would be called to account and you can bet your left cheek, your right cheek.. in fact your whole ass..., that people would at least be sacked, and any evidence given over to the police.

No cover up would be possible.

Am I right?

And if they didn't, people would stop dealing with those companies in droves.... and it's likely lots of staff would leave.

Am I right?

If so... how many people are LEAVING the Cathloic church? Is there any stats about it? Do Catholic's really not think thre Pope hassome responsibility?

Leadership starts at the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPreston

If anyone is interested in reading an authoritative summary by the bona fide legal expert at the heart of the case, Geoffrey Robertson QC writes at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...to-court/full/

....

---

Robertson makes a convincing case. But then, as someone that has made a successful career of arguing his case, I'd expect him to.

Yes, he's a bona-fide legal expert, but that doesn't make him right. It also doesn't make him wrong. If you want a genuinely credible bona-fide legal view, we need another eminent QC to argue the opposite case.

Robertson is also an advocate not just in the legal sense, but in the sense of making a career of the human rights agenda. He's an advocate for a point of view, and all the signs are, a genuine believer. Some of that comes across in the tone he adopts.

Is he convincing in his arguments? Yup, but expect nothing less. Does it amount to an incontrovertible statement of the position? No, because he is arguing his perspective. Would you want to be tried in a court where the prosecution barrister had free reign, and the defence didn't get to say a word? I sure wouldn't.

I hope Robertson is right. I hope the Pope doesn't come here, and if he does, I hope there's enough evidence (and political gonads) to arrest and try him, and if so, I hope he's convicted. But it doesn't change the fact that Robertson's arguments are only one side of the case. Or that, sadly, I very much doubt we'll get a trial for reasons of political pragmatism, but almost certainly will get a visit because it won't be cancelled (or not from this end, anyway).

We, the people, might not be able to get the authorities to arrest him .... but we sure as hell can protest and make sure he goes home with no doubt at all about how we feel and with the worst publicity and PR a Pope has ever had from a foreign visit. That, if nothing else, should make headlines round the world.

But will we?